BY CARL-ERIK ISACCSSON
STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Paris and Bonn have agreed to open discussions on a common nuclear military policy. The January 24 issue of the French daily Le Monde published a secret accord signed by French president Jacques Chirac and German chancellor Helmut Kohl in Nuremberg December 9. It stated that Paris and Bonn agreed to "open a dialogue on the role of the nuclear deterrence in the context of a European defense policy." This represents another step by the two governments to try to form a counterweight to the economic and military domination in Europe by Washington.

The authenticity of the document was confirmed by French officials, who said it had been submitted to French and German parliaments for discussion before publication. The agreement includes recognition of the "preeminence of NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] in the field of nuclear deterrent." This statement sparked controversy. The Socialist Party and Communist Party immediately denounced it as a blow to the national sovereignty of France. Foreign ministry spokesman Jacques Rummelhardt retorted, "It would be wrong to see in this agreement [as] a bending of the nuclear policy of France."

The publication of the Nuremberg accord coincided with a debate in the French parliament over the reorganization of large parts of the French military from conscription into rapid reaction mobile task forces. The French Communist and Socialist parties, as well as many of Chirac's Gaullist party friends, opposed this move and spoke of it as a treason to French national interests.

Paris had kept distance from NATO
Before last year, Paris had kept itself outside the NATO command structure for 30 years. Since French president Charles De Gaulle withdrew from NATO in 1966, French nuclear weapons have been under the sole control of Paris, while Washington, through NATO, has controlled its own nuclear weapons stationed in different countries in Europe. London has served as a junior partner to Washington, with a nuclear arsenal of its own.

De Gaulle's policy had been followed until French Foreign Minister Hervé de Charette at the NATO meeting in Berlin last June announced that Paris wanted to reenter the NATO command. This reflected the recognition by the French rulers of U.S. domination in Europe through NATO, despite the increasing fractures in the alliance.

Paris and Bonn had probed a military counterweight through the Western European Union (WEU), composed of the NATO members in Europe, but this has so far largely proven a failure. The driving role of Washington in sending NATO troops into Yugoslavia in early 1996 was an indication of the continued relative strength of U.S. imperialism as a military power in Europe after the "Cold War."

Earlier, Bonn had not been willing to discuss the French nuclear weapons as part of the post-cold war military arrangements in Europe. The German government, which has no nuclear arsenal of its own, condemned Chirac's nuclear tests in the Pacific the summer of 1995. There is broad opposition among Germany's population to nuclear weapons, as demonstrations showed when Washington wanted to station midrange nuclear missiles in Germany in the 1980s.

But with Paris retreating into NATO's command structure, the possibilities have increased for Bonn, which has taken a lead over France in politics in Europe, to have a say over the French nuclear weapons and French military forces. Bonn can pressure Paris by blocking with Washington and London to hinder Paris from militarily intervening in Africa, for instance.

At the NATO meeting in Berlin last June, French Foreign minister Charette stated that Paris's return to the NATO command structure was contingent on a European (read French) officer heading up the Southern Command in Naples. The Southern Command is where the U.S. Sixth Fleet is based. This demand was backed by Bonn. By backing Paris on this bid, Bonn challenged Washington within NATO in Europe.

Dispute over Southern Command
Just how important Washington considers the Southern Command, and what role it thinks Paris should play in future military arrangements, was bluntly summed up in an editorial in the Dec. 4, 1996, New York Times. "NATO's top officer for Europe, by tradition an American, has three regional deputies," the editors explained. "A British officer generally commands the Northwestern region, a German runs the Central region and an American is in charge of the South. Citing traditional French interests in the Mediterranean area, Mr. Chirac has demanded the Southern Command. That is a job no American President can or should yield. The Southern Command effectively directs the formidable naval and air resources the United States has based in the Mediterranean area. In addition to their NATO responsibilities these units are used to protect American power into the Middle East, where United States and French policy do not always coincide."

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote in a column a few days earlier, "What France should be doing is offering to come back to NATO as a leader of a rapid deployment force, or something of that nature, that would be able to take on the difficult jobs the U.S. has no stomach for, but which the French have always had the guts to take on -like peacekeeping in Bosnia after the NATO mission expires in 18 months."

At the end of January, French officials suggested a compromise of a divided Southern Command. The Pentagon replied that Washington had not changed its position of retaining full control of the operation.

The fact that Bonn has decided to deploy 3,000 combat- ready soldiers to Bosnia, the first outside Germany's borders since World War II, in the so-called Bosnian-Serb areas where Paris has long had its military units stationed, is also part of the picture. French officials now say their military forces will leave Bosnia when the U.S. troops pull out. The German government also declined a U.S. offer to sell Bonn a spy satellite at a bargain price and without standard U.S. restrictions on its use. Instead, Kohl is going ahead with plans to co-finance with Paris a new generation of European photo reconnaissance satellites.

One of the issues in the rifts between Bonn, Paris, Washington, and London is the plan for enlargement of NATO into Eastern Europe, which is causing tensions with Moscow. The enlargement of NATO into Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and possibly Slovenia is a threat to Bonn, who depends on good relations with Moscow to be able to promote its interests in eastern and central Europe and in the areas of the former Soviet Union.

Bonn has poured more money into these areas in loans, aid, and investments than any of its imperialist competitors. Bonn is maneuvering within NATO to try to dampen the effects of such a move, the details of which are to be worked out at a summit in June.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home